Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Mac DeMarco discography/archive2
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Crisco 1492 07:04, 26 June 2015 [1].
Mac DeMarco discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Featured list candidates/Mac DeMarco discography/archive1
- Featured list candidates/Mac DeMarco discography/archive2
Toolbox |
---|
- Nominator(s): Littlecarmen (talk) 18:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the criteria. I nominated it six months ago but the nomination didn't get enough comments/supports and was closed. I would be thankful for any comments and opinions! Thank you very much, Littlecarmen (talk) 18:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 05:40, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments I'm sorry you had to wait a month for your first comment here, but here we go:
That's it for now. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from Seattle (talk) 01:06, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
Resolved comments from Harrias |
---|
Comments
|
Support nice work! Harrias talk 19:37, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you! Littlecarmen (talk) 19:50, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from FrankBoy CHITCHAT 09:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments from FrB.TG
For this to pass, you need to invite one more editor. Also, I would like you to look at my nomination. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 22:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support — FrankBoy CHITCHAT 09:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you! Littlecarmen (talk) 11:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Azealia911 talk 19:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments from Azealia 911
Like I said, if there's no definitive policy that states all discographies should have concurrent layouts, then I guess it's up to you, or delegates as you suggest. But I see no pros to the new format change, especially if information is released giving means for a "Sales" column to be added in the studio albums table, squishing everything even smaller still. The sortable options also make no sense to me, dates are already sorted in regular tables from earliest to latest release, I see no reason why people would want to sort labels, especially in this case as there's two of the same label and one N/A, I can maybe just see reason for title sort option, but even so, there's three albums, it's not like we're dealing with tons of information. But hey, even though there may not be a policy, I think some common sense needs to be applied to our thinking, and having a concurrent layout theme from discog to dicgoc, in order as to not confuse readers, seems more than logical. Azealia911 talk 15:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
May have some more comments later, that was a brief scan of the article, so some things may not need fixing, feel free to tell me something's already done/sourced/correct. Azealia911 talk 20:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support per all my comments being addressed, great work. Azealia911 talk 16:17, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you very much! Littlecarmen (talk) 16:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 06:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.